Object drop in L3 acquisition

Abstract

The topic of cross-linguistic differences regarding the overt or null expression of arguments has been considered both in first (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition. There is abundant literature on both subject and object drop with different language pairings but the issue has not been considered in third language (L3) acquisition. The main goal of this article is to analyse the L3 interlanguage of Basque-Spanish bilinguals regarding the acceptability and interpretation of null objects. The three languages involved in the study display different semantic requirements for the target structure, with Basque allowing for a null object option across-the-board, Spanish only under certain semantic conditions, and English disallowing it in the standard variety. Two trilingual, one bilingual and a control group (n = 119) rated experimental items embedded in context, presented in a written and aural format on a computer screen. Findings point to the successful acquisition of the target structure, as well as a clear influence of Spanish in the three experimental groups.

The scalpel model of third language acquisition

“…However, variable construction frequency and misleading input can also impact the process, as argued by Slabakova and García Mayo (2015). In addition, properties may be harder to acquire when negative evidence is needed for their successful acquisition (see findings in Slabakova & García Mayo, 2015, versus García Mayo & Slabakova, 2015). Even in balanced bilinguals, communicative usage of the language that is similar to the L3 certainly tilts the scale, making successful acquisition faster (Fallah et al, 2016).…”

Role of Regional Language Background and Speech Styles on the Production of Voice Onset Time (VOT) in English among Indonesian Multilinguals

“…Recent developments in this area have led to the proliferation of studies that favor multilingual acquisition in adulthood with an increased interest in morphology and syntax (for further discussion, see Antonova-Ünlü & Sağın-Şimşek, 2015; Bardel & Falk, 2007;Flynn et al, 2004;García-Mayo & Slabakova, 2012;Sereno & Jongman, 1997) and with a lack of research on phonology (Fallah et al, 2016;Jaensch, 2011). Besides, previous major works have relied heavily on Western language pairings (see Gut, 2010;Llama et al, 2010;Mayo & Slabakova, 2015;Mayr & Montanari, 2015;Missaglia, 2010;Rah, 2010;Sanchez, 2015). This indicates that investigations involving non-Western languages are inadequate.…”

A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition

“… 3. The range of levels within what we have included under ‘post-beginner’ is wide, from intermediate (e.g., Santos, 2013) to even near-native learners (García Mayo and Slabakova, 2015; Slabakova and García Mayo, 2015). However, and besides the reasons we have just offered, we limited the levels of this variable to two for ease of comparability: measures of proficiency vary greatly across studies (ranging from self-assessment to standardized tests), and therefore it would have been difficult – if possible at all – to develop an independent taxonomy where the studies could confidently be assigned to different levels. …”